coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  On 8 February 1977 affiliation proceedings were brought in respect of the applicant before the then Košice City Court.
5.  On 30 November 1988 the Košice Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment delivered on 15 September 1987.
6.  The Košice II District Court, to which the case fell to be examined, experienced difficulties in obtaining the evidence. This was mainly due to the fact that the person who was supposed to be the applicant’s father was a Belgian national and that he had refused to co-operate with the court.
7.  On 22 September 1995 the Constitutional Court found, in proceedings under Article 130 (3) of the Constitution, that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have the case examined without undue delays.
8.  On 16 January 1996 the Košice II District Court dismissed the action. On 6 May 1997 the Košice Regional Court quashed the judgment and sent the case back to the first instance court.
9.  On 16 June 2000 the Košice II District Court delivered a new judgment by which it dismissed the action. On 17 July 2000 the applicant appealed.
10.  On 16 August 2002 the Košice Regional Court overturned the first instance judgment in that it found that the defendant was the applicant’s father. As to the remainder of the action including the maintenance and the court fee, the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment and sent the case back to the latter.
11.  On 5 November 2002 the defendant filed an appeal on points of law.
The proceedings are pending.
4.  The applicant was born in in 1947 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 3 May 1991 the applicant filed an action for damages with the Bratislava I District Court. She claimed compensation for a work-related accident.
6.  On 9 September 1993 the District Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed on 1 October 1993.
7.  On 31 August 1994 the Bratislava City Court quashed the first instance judgment.
8.  On 31 October 1996 the applicant extended her action in that she also claimed the protection of her right to protection of her reputation.
9.  On 31 July 1998 the Bratislava I District Court ordered an expert opinion to be submitted.
10.  The applicant filed a petition pursuant to Article 130 (3) of the Constitution in which she complained about the length of the proceedings. On 22 September 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have her case examined without undue delays.
11.  On 18 December 2000 the Bratislava I District Court ordered an expert opinion. Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the District Court judge.
12.  On 12 August 2002 the District Court decided on the expert’s fees. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 6 September 2002 she submitted to the court her comments on the expert’s conclusions.
13.  On 4 March 2003 the District Court invited the parties to submit further information. The proceedings are pending.
4.  On 29 November 1996 the applicant filed for divorce from his wife and for custody of their children before the Košice I District Court.
5.  On 29 April 1998 the Košice I District Court requested the applicant to submit a certificate about his and his wife’s residence. The applicant complied with the request on 15 May 1998. On 9 November 1998 the applicant’s wife asked the court to proceed with the case as the situation in their family affected the children born out of the wedlock.
6.  On 25 November 1999 the Košice I District Court transferred the case to the Košice II District Court for reasons of jurisdiction. On 14 February 2000 the Košice Regional Court found that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Košice I District Court.
7.  On 5 September 2000 the Košice I District Court appointed a guardian to the applicant’s children in the context of the divorce proceedings. On 26 September 2000 both the applicant and his wife stated their position on the subject-matter of the case in reply to the court’s request. On 4 October 2000 the District Court asked the applicant’s employer to submit information about the applicant’s income.
8.  On 2 November 2000 the Košice I District Court heard the parties and delivered a judgment by which it granted a divorce to the applicant and his wife. The court further granted the custody of the children to the mother, decided on the maintenance and on the applicant’s right to have contact with the children. The judgment became final on 31 January 2001.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 5 January 1994 the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal from a job before the Bratislava III District Court.
6.  On 2 September 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava III District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delays. In its finding the Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the case had to be adjourned on twelve occasions as the chamber dealing with it was incomplete.
7.  On 6 October 1999 the District Court declared the applicant’s dismissal unlawful. The judgment was served on the applicant on 14 March 2000 and the defendant company appealed on 17 March 2000.
8.  On 4 October 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment to the extent that it concerned the compensation awarded to the applicant and the decision on court fee. The Regional Court upheld the remainder of the District Court’s judgment.
9.  In the proceedings concerning the outstanding part of the applicant’s claims the Bratislava III District Court scheduled hearings for 23 November 2001 and 15 February 2002. The proceedings are pending.
8.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Moosburg, Germany.
9.  On 18 June 1990 the applicant filed a civil action against I.R. for disturbance of peaceful possession of leased premises before the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci). He claimed that I.R. disturbed the peaceful possession of his business premises - a tailor's workshop in Rijeka - in that she had forcefully evicted the applicant and his son from the premises.
10.  On 29 September 1994 I.R. died and the proceedings were continued against her legal successors.
11.  In the ensuing proceedings, several hearings were held and several adjourned until 5 November 1997 when the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia.
12.  The hearing scheduled for 5 October 1999 was adjourned on the applicant counsel's request.
13.  At the hearing on 22 November 1999 the proceedings were concluded and the court rejected the applicant's request. The applicant did not appeal against that decision and it became final on 10 February 2000.
6.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Namysłów, Poland.
7.  In 1979 the applicant’s sister and her husband filed with the Kluczbork District Court (sąd rejonowy) an action in which they requested that the co-ownership of the house shared by them with the applicant be dissolved. They sought to be granted the sole ownership of the house on payment of a compensation to the applicant.
8.  In 1981 the District Court dismissed the action.
9.  In 1982 the Opole Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) quashed that judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
10.  In 1983, having re-examined the case, the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ claim. In 1984 the Regional Court amended that judgment.
11.  Subsequently, the General Prosecutor filed an extraordinary appeal against the judgments of both courts.
12.  In 1985 the Supreme Court quashed them and remitted the case for re-examination.
13.  In 1988 the District Court after the re-examination again granted the plaintiffs’ claim.
14.  In October 1988 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that judgment. The First President of the Supreme Court filed an extraordinary appeal.
15.  In 1991 the Supreme Court again quashed the judgments of both courts and remitted the case for re-examination.
16.  On 27 October 1997 the Kluczbork District Court gave judgment. It dissolved the co-ownership and awarded the ownership of separate parts of the house to the parties. The applicant and the plaintiffs appealed.
17.  On 5 August 1998 the Opole Regional Court dismissed both appeals. The applicant filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
18.  On 12 June 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain that appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Warsaw.
6.  On 2 April 1992 the applicant filed with the Warsaw Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) a petition in which he requested the annulment of a judgment delivered in 1947 in criminal proceedings against him, submitting that they had been of a political nature. He also claimed compensation.
7.  On 10 February 1993 the court annulled that judgment. However, its decision did not relate to the compensation claim.
8.  On 19 February 1993 the applicant filed another compensation claim.
9.  Subsequently, he lodged several complaints concerning the inactivity of the court, but to no avail.
10.  In her letters of 15 December 1993 and 29 June 1994, in reply to the applicant's complaints, a judge of the Regional Court informed the applicant that the delay in the examination of his compensation claim was caused by a large number of similar requests lodged with that court and the dearth of judges.
11.  On 22 February 1995 the court held a hearing. A public prosecutor requested that the proceedings be stayed, submitting that a part of the Regional Court's decision of 10 February 1993 was invalid and required supplementation. Subsequently, the court stayed the proceedings.
12.  The hearing scheduled for 22 March 1995 was adjourned at the applicant's request.
13.  On 4 April 1995 the Regional Court asked the Office for the State Protection (Urząd Ochrony Państwa) to submit certain documents. The documents were submitted to the court on 27 March 1996.
14.  On 4 July 1996 the proceedings were resumed.
15.  The court adjourned the hearing scheduled for 23 January 1997, as the proceedings concerning the annulment of the criminal judgment against the applicant given in 1947 had not been completed.
16.  On 19 June 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 7,500 in compensation. He did not lodge an appeal against that judgment.
6.  The applicants live in Rome.
7.  A.M.C. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to A.N.
8.  In a registered letter of 12 July 1990, the owner informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date. The tenant told the owner that she would not leave the premises by that date.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 December 1990, the owner reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 3 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 8 July 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
11.  On an unspecified date F.B, the applicants' father, became the owner of the flat by transfer of property.
12.  On 25 January 1993, the new owner served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
13.  On 12 May 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 May 1993.
14.  On 21 May 1993, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession which proved unsuccessful as the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 1 July 1993, the owner served a second notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
16.  On 23 September 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 September 1993.
17.  Between 29 September 1993 and 15 June 1995, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  On 16 March 1995, the owner made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
19.  On 16 July 1997, the owner served a new notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
20.  On 5 September 1997, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 July 1997.
21.  Between 23 July 1997 and 21 November 1997, the bailiff made two attempts to recover possession. 
Each attempt proved unsuccessful as the owner was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
22.  On 20 September 1997, the owner died and his children – the applicants – inherited the flat.
23.  On 21 May 1998, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
24.  On 5 June 1998, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 1 July 1998.
25.  Between 1 July 1998 and 15 July 1999, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
26.  On 14 September 1999, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
6.  The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1944 and living in Florence.
7.  She is the owner of a flat in Florence, which she had let to M.C.
8.  In a registered letter of 26 October 1992, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 May 1995 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 20 November 1992, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 14 December 1992, which was made enforceable on 12 January 1993, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1995.
11.  On 28 November 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her son.
12.  On 5 June 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
13.  On 21 June 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 September 1995.
14.  Between 5 September 1995 and 2 May 1999, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  Pursuant to Law no. 431/98, on 23 July 1999, the tenant asked the Florence Magistrate to suspend the enforcement proceedings.
16.  On 12 March 2001, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 2 October 2002.
17.  On 6 April 2001, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 October 2002.
18.  On an unspecified date, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Legionowo, Poland.
7.  On 7 August 1948 the Warsaw District Military Court convicted the applicant’s father of an unspecified offence related to his political activity.
8.  On 20 April 1994 the applicant filed an application with the Ostrołęka Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) for the annulment of his father’s conviction under the Law of 23 February 1991 on annulment of convictions whereby persons were persecuted for their activities aimed at achieving independence for Poland (Ustawa o uznaniu za nieważne orzeczeń wydanych wobec osób represjonowanych za działalność na rzecz niepodległego bytu Państwa Polskiego).
9.  On 20 June 1994 the Regional Court declared the conviction null and void.
10.  On an unknown later date in 1994 the applicant filed an application for compensation for his father’s wrongful conviction with the Ostrołęka Regional Court.
11.  Subsequently, the case was referred to the Warsaw Regional Court.
12.  On 11 July 2000 the Regional Court granted the applicant’s claim. That judgment became final on 19 July 2000.
13.  On 14 November 2000 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice about the fact that he had not received the awarded compensation.
14.  The compensation was paid on 2 April 2001.
8.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Skarżysko-Kamienna, Poland.
9.  In 1984 the applicant’s father died. On 4 October 1985 W.S. (“the petitioner”) filed an application for distribution of the estate of the deceased with the Starachowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The applicant was a party to the proceedings.
10.  From 23 November 1987 to 15 March 1988 the proceedings were stayed due to the death of one of the parties. Later, the petitioner instituted administrative proceedings and requested that title to the applicant’s father real property be declared null and void. As a result, on 27 November 1991 the court stayed the proceedings. On 12 February 1992 they were resumed.
11.  In the course of the proceedings the court held a number of hearings and obtained thirteen expert reports. On 24 October 1994 it gave a decision. The petitioner appealed.
12.  On 14 June 1995 the Kielce Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the District Court.
13.  Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on the following dates: 16 January, 2 and 30 April 1996. On 31 October 1996 the court stayed the proceedings. The applicant appealed. On 21 December 1996 the court quashed the contested decision.
14.  The court held hearings on the following dates: 27 May, 16 September, 1 December 1997 and 16 January 1998.
15.  On 17 February 1998 the court stayed the proceedings, considering that the determination of the case depended on the outcome of the other civil proceedings. The applicant appealed. On 29 May 1998 the Kielce Regional Court upheld the decision of the District Court.
16.  On 4 August 1998 the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed. On 20 October 2000 the court refused the applicant’s request as the petitioner had failed to secure an advance payment for an expert report.
17.  It appears that the proceedings are still stayed and, therefore, pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Florence.
5.  She is the owner of a flat, which she had let to P.M.
6.  In a registered letter of 30 March 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 3 February 1988, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 29 February 1988, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 March 1989.
9.  On 5 April 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
10.  On 15 April 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 8 May 1989 she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 June 1989.
12.  Between 7 June 1989 and 9 June 1998 the bailiff made eighteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 30 June 1999 the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
8.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Ljubljana, Slovenia.
9.  On 24 April 1992 the applicant's restaurant and adjacent house in Novigrad (Croatia) were destroyed as the result of an explosion.
10.  On 29 November 1994 the applicant filed an action for compensation with the Buje Municipal Court (Opcinski sud u Bujama), against the Republic of Croatia.
11.  On 1 June 1995 the court pronounced judgment awarding the applicant 1,911,000.24 Croatian Kunas (HRK) in compensation together with interests and costs.
12.  On 17 January 1996 Parliament introduced a change of the Civil Obligations Act which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for compensation for damage resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject and that before the enactment of such new legislation compensation for damage resulting from terrorist acts could not be sought. So far the Croatian authorities have not enacted any new legislation regulating the matter.
13.  On 29 February 1996 the first instance judgment adopted on 1 June 1995 was sent to the parties.
14.  On 11 March 1996 the Republic of Croatia appealed against the judgment of 1 June 1995 asking the court to stay the proceedings pursuant to the above changes in law.
15.  On 14 October 1996 the Pula County Court (Zupanijski sud u Puli) quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a re-trial. It found that the first instance court had not adequately assessed whether the applicant's property was destroyed by an act which might be deemed to be a terrorist act.
16.  On 9 February 1998 the Buje Municipal Court decided to stay the proceedings in accordance with the above legislation.
17.  On 3 March 1998 the applicant appealed against that decision. He claimed that the 1996 Act was applied retroactively in his case.
18.  On 4 May 1998 the Pula County Court upheld the first instance decision.
19.  On 20 June 1998 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint challenging the constitutionality of the lower courts' decisions to stay the proceedings. He also asked the Constitutional Court to institute proceedings in order to examine the constitutionality of the Act on Changes of the Civil Obligations Act.
20.  On 17 January 2000 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's complaint inadmissible. It found that the applicant had filed a constitutional complaint against the County Court's decision of 4 May 1998 which upheld the Buje Municipal Court's decision to stay the proceedings concerning the applicant's claim for compensation. However, according to the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court an applicant may file a constitutional complaint only against a final decision concerning any proceedings. The court found that the contested decision was not final since it represented a mere procedural decision and since the proceedings were still pending. It did not give any reply to the applicant's request to institute proceedings in order to examine the constitutionality of the contested laws.
6.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
7.  On 2 October 1984 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared that the applicant should inherit his mother’s estate. On an unknown date in 1985 the applicant’s step-father M.O. filed an application with the Warsaw District Court for division of their marital property.
8.  On 9 June 1988 the court gave a decision. On 4 April 1989 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed the applicant’s further appeal. On 15 November 1989, on an extraordinary appeal lodged by the General Prosecutor, the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) set aside both above decisions and remitted the case to the court of first instance.
9.  On 8 June 1992 the court stayed the proceedings. They were later resumed on 4 November 1996.
10.  Between 6 May 1998 and 15 November 2002 the trial court held nine hearings.
11.  The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw District Court.